Best security questions in November 2011

What is vulnerable about this C code?

18 votes
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <sys/types.h>
#include <stdio.h>

int main(int argc, char **argv, char **envp)
{
    gid_t gid;
    uid_t uid;
    gid = getegid();
    uid = geteuid();

    setresgid(gid, gid, gid);
    setresuid(uid, uid, uid);

    system("/usr/bin/env echo and now what?");

}

The way I understand it, the code above allows arbitrary code (or program) execution — what makes this vulnerable, and how does one take advantage of this?

You can override the PATH variable to point to a directory with your custom version of echo and since echo is executed using env, it isn't treated as a built-in.

This constitues a vulnerability only if the code is run as privileged user.

In the example below file v.c contains the code from the question.

$ cat echo.c
#include <stdio.h>
#include <unistd.h>

int main() {
  printf("Code run as uid=%d\n", getuid());
}
$ cc -o echo echo.c
$ cc -o v v.c
$ sudo chown root v
$ sudo chmod +s v
$ ls -l
total 64
-rwxr-xr-x  1 user     group  8752 Nov 29 01:55 echo
-rw-r--r--  1 user     group    99 Nov 29 01:54 echo.c
-rwsr-sr-x  1 root     group  8896 Nov 29 01:55 v
-rw-r--r--  1 user     group   279 Nov 29 01:55 v.c
$ ./v
and now what?
$ export PATH=.:$PATH
$ ./v
Code run as uid=0
$ 

Note that the setting of real user ID, effective user ID and saved set-user-ID by a call to setresuid() before the call to system() in the vulnerable code posted in the question allows one to exploit the vulnerability even when only effective user ID is set to a privileged user ID and real user ID remains unprivileged (as is for example the case when relying on set-user-ID bit on a file as above). Without the call to setresuid() the shell run by system() would reset the effective user ID back to the real user ID making the exploit ineffective. However, in the case when the vulnerable code is run with real user ID of a privileged user, system() call alone is enough. Quoting sh man page:

If the shell is started with the effective user (group) id not equal to the real user (group) id, and the -p option is not supplied, no startup files are read, shell functions are not inherited from the environment, the SHELLOPTS variable, if it appears in the environment, is ignored, and the effective user id is set to the real user id. If the -p option is supplied at invocation, the startup behavior is the same, but the effective user id is not reset.

Also, note that setresuid() isn't portable, but setuid() or setreuid() may also be used to the same effect.

Javascript hashing in AJAX login calls, more security?

5 votes

From a lot of posts I've seen on the site, logins performed by AJAX or traditional forms are just as secure as one another. (re: Login/session cookies, Ajax and security Ajax login and javascript cookies, is this secure?)

My question(s) is/are:

  1. If I hash the user's password (via client-side/javascript hash libraries) before I send it to the server, do I increase security from people easedropping?

  2. If I put a form token (one random based, another time based), does that cover CSRF attacks?

  3. Would I have all my bases covered after all this? Would this form be secure?

Actually this could be a major security problem. The reason why passwords are hashed is a means of planning on failure. An attacker might gain access to the data store (sql injection) and then obtain the hash. If you are just logging in with a hash, then the attacker doesn't have to crack the recovered hash in order to gain access to the application.

Replay attacks are also a problem. If I sniff the hash during authentication, whats stopping me from just replaying that request to authenticate?

Protocols that use message digest functions for authentication provide the client with a nonce, which is used as a one time salt. Microsoft's SMB NTLM authentication is a good example, but it has had a lot of problems.

USE SSL, and not just for login. OWASP A9 states that the session id must never be leaked over an insecure channel. After all who cares about the password if you just spill the real authentication credentials a few milliseconds later.

Most people don't implement CSRF protection for login. After all the attacker would have to know the password in the first place, so "session riding" is a moot point.